Skip to main content

About your Search

20110301
20110331
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
security, the united states of america depends on defense dollars. those are being cut, too, but not in proportion to foreign aid. defense, diplomacy, and development. turmoil, terrorists -- they find a very for tile soil when they are in communities that are lacking the basic essentials of life. it is in our interest. secondly, we are amoral society. ithere are many people who support foreign aid because they understand it is important to help people whether it is hiv aids, malaria, drinking water. i have been to some countries where family planning is not adequate, and women who can barely support their children are having a ninth or a tent child. it is in the interest of the united states. we are a society thatelieves ave to b .. others. host: one last article and then to your calls. the treasury secretary has been on capitol hill trying to make the case for maintaining funding levels for key foreign aid programs. here is the headline. >> host: tim geithner, treasury secretary scad in congress as the world's bank failure to finance the capital increase would lead to the l
said is exactly right, that they do have a continuing interest and within corporate america. i think that's the social policy point that has to be made and not just sort of abstract view of what a hypothetical absent class member would think. >> well -- >> go ahead, quickly. >> two brief points since it was addressed primarily to me. the first of which is -- [laughter] i apologize if it was delegitimizing. that was not the sent to say the women are only in it for nickel and dimes. one is for relief and the other is for money relief and that including back pay or compensatory damages, and given the women don't have standing currently to seek relief, the only relief available to them in this case right now is the monetary relief, and at that point when half your class is only in this particular case, that's going to effect which way i think the predominance analysis goes whether it's primarily injunction or monetary. i think any human being who wants corporations not discriminatory has an interest, but the recognized are the ones left standing before the court, and in this case, those
.ouldose but america would lose so muchro to normal because these are madi arbitrarily, without regard for the consequences.that that is why lean independent int economists agreed it would hurt our economy, slow growth and owth cost jobs. we can't afford that. on the day before yesterday on thet national public radio, they had0 more than 300 economists whodont were staying with one voice don't do this. the we can't be blinded by the big numbers in the house republicant plan. how we have to scrutinize how theytt cut $63 billion, and the truth is that it adds up to $61 billion with a significant e attraction of programs the american people don't want tolas lose. it slashes more than a billionol dollars of social security. billions. seniors which means half a million secuy seniors will pay social security their entire lives, and now are eligible for wouldn't be able tt get the beonefits promised them. there's nobody to process theit claims. it cut $700 million from educationation, which which mean disadvantage just can lose funding and moreore than 10,000 teachers carried the aids and le
telling us it wouldn't change america, i'm concerned that it has. you represent 50,000 well-meaning people. i debate well-trained because your turnover is still pretty darn high and it's hard to have that many new people and say they are well-trained. every time i go through security i see training. that's a good thing, but i see the need for training every time i go through. let me give you something other than full body scanner for relief. i fly more than 40 round trips a year plus overseas trip. for more than six years i carried in my carry on bag gouge and every flight a pair of folding scissors. that pair of scissors was taken away two weeks ago. that pair of folding scissors, if you open them up has one inch of blade times two, and it's overall length is two inches. i have researched and can want find a basis for taking that away. do you have an explanation for that kind of subjectivity? were they wrong -- 40 times two is 80. you know, 320 times they were wrong, or right one time? >> we did an analysis on the prohibited items list on november 2005, that time frame with a risk-based a
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4